Partly allowed

Sri.K.P.Nityananda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2022WP/12213/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an order of forfeiture of agricultural land passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court quashed the concurrent Tribunal order and the original forfeiture order, remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of hearing, noting similarity to a coordinate bench's prior decisi

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the order dated 08.07.2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the forfeiture order dated 30.06.1990 were quashed and set aside; the matter was remanded to the Assis

Sri.K.P.Nityananda Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 12213 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12213 OF 2021 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.K.P.NITYANANDA S/O LATE PUTTARAMSA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, R/AT NO 204/Y, 13^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010.

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY REVENUE SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU 560001

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYABHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYABHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SESHU.V, HCGP)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 12213 of 2021

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.30.6.1990 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dated 30.06.1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru under the provisions of Section 83 for violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the subsequent order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in Rev.Misc. No.8/2015 (in Appeal No.523/2007).

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶27

¶28

WP No. 12213 of 2021

¶29

W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021 remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

¶30

Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any court/authority.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader points out from the impugned order that notice was indeed issued to the petitioner and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶32

It is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that even as per the materials available on record, after forfeiture, the excess lands have been granted by the State Government to third parties. The Assistant Commissioner is therefore required to ascertain, whether the forfeited lands still remain with the State Government or has been granted to third parties. If

¶33

¶34

WP No. 12213 of 2021

¶35

the lands have been granted to third party, then subsection(1) of Section 12 of the amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings have reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶36

Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶37

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in Rev.Misc. No.8/2015 (in Appeal No.523/2007) and the order dated 30.06.1990 passed in case No.L.R.F.(83)304/1986-87, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the

¶38

¶39

WP No. 12213 of 2021

¶40

case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶41

The petitioner shall appear before the respondentAssistant Commissioner on 19^th September 2022, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant

Commissioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

Sri.K.P.Nityananda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.P.Nityananda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Sathish Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Omkarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah Vs the Head Quarters Assistant to Office

N Lakshminarayana Vs the Land Tribunal

Sri N Ramesh Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka